Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by ks777, Feb 14, 2013.
The media would probably stay away if people stopped paying her so much attention, don't you think?
the jury fails to reach a unanimous decision.. The new trial starts in July.
I think there is something wrong with the law here. The jury unanimously finds her guilty of First Degree Murder with aggravating circumstances. Rather than having to choose life or death, I think it would make more sense if life without the possibility of parole was the default punishment, but the jury could impose the death sentence unanimously if they saw fit. That removes the "we couldn't agree" option. I cannot think it is fair to have to seat another jury to decide the appropriate punishment in a case they did not hear.
I also think that, even though they all said they could impose the death penalty, when it came right down to it some couldn't. And the defense should not be allowed to say to the Jury......if you kill her. They aren't killing her. They are imposing a punishment that will result in her death. Very different. And, I suspect, given the other two verdicts, they all agreed they wanted her locked up and never getting out.
Oh well. I am sure someone will call me soon and put me in charge of it all.
I just feel so horrible for the Alexander family. Boy, they are made of strong stuff.
I don't blame the defense for framing it in that way. Essentially, by imposing a punishment that will result in her death, they are killing her even if they aren't the ones to lethally inject her. Whether or not her death is justified is another issue. It's the defense's job to make the jury think about their decision from all angles and points-of-view to ensure when they make a decision, they're sure.
It's up to the prosecution to re-frame the issue and convince the jury that they aren't "killing" her or at least why it'd be a positive thing to do so. It's also up to the judge to reiterate and remind the jury what the law of the state says and let that guide the jury when they're evaluating their findings of fact and deliberating whether it fits in with what's required for the death penalty.
I do agree with you that it's strange to have a whole new jury come in for the penalty stage when they aren't the ones who have been sitting in on the trial to find her guilty of first-degree murder.
The death penalty would be proper retribution in this case only if the state of Arizona killed Arias the same way she killed Travis Alexander. Lethal injection is far too kind.
Good grief! The jury foreman thinks SHE was verbally and emotionally abused by Travis. Wow!
-listening to his conversations with his friends?
-crawling into his home through doggie-door?
-re-locating to his hometown after breakup?
-slashing his & his friend's tires?
-stalking behavior (peeping into window)?
-hiding behind his Christmas tree...in his home...uninvited?
Now really, Mr. Jury Foreman, Can't you see why Travis might have been a little miffed at Jodi? But abused? Really? You must have been taking Alyce Laviolette seriously. Jeez!
Yeah I was shocked to find out that the jury foreman believed she was abused verbally and emotionally.
Separate names with a comma.